Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#5,601
#5,601
BernardKingGOAT said:
You're absolutely right! It's amazing I could have ever graduated with high honors with both my undergraduate and graduate degrees in economics. Even more amazing in the 30 years after that, with so little brain power, I moved up the ranks at Nissan as an analyst and middle manager, then was hired by General Electric as a corporate manager. I am glad Jack Welch made an exception for me. I suppose again, with so little brain power, I must have gotten lucky with money management that I could retire at 58. I must have been a reverse DEI case, given that I am a white male with so little brain power. 🤭🤣🤣🤣🤣

I defer to you on Charlie Kirk and his moderate views. I do appreciate you using your high level brain power to set me straight on the matter. Thanks!
Click to expand...
You're very welcome. Ignorance is bliss as they say. My only thing is if you're going to call someone racist, at least do your own research instead of listening to your left wing media for confirmation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, marcusluvsvols, whodeycin85 and 3 others
#5,603
#5,603
lawgator1 said:
What concerns me about the latest commentary is that in sone quarters there doesn't seem to be any distinction drawn between actually calling for violence versus criticizing the views of victims of violence.

For example, a right wing adherent can believe both of these things:

1) the killing of Hortman was horrible and cannot be justified; and
2) Hortman stood for and advocated for policies which are, to the right wing point of view, terribly wrong.

The fact that she was assassinated doesn't suddenly mean that she or her views cannot be criticized, else the right winger criticizing her is now suddenly a domestic terrorist who must be investigated and fired for having the temerity to criticize a victim.

On the flip side, it is possible to:

1) Find the assassination of Kirk to be abhorrent and unjustifiable; but
2) continue even after his death to disagree and criticize his views and comments.


In both cases, engaging in the second premise doesn't preclude the first and does not justify saying that the person is advocating or defending violence.
Click to expand...
I've yet to see anyone getting the boot for anything other than celebrating or justifying his murder. Plenty have sad he sucks but this shouldn't have happened
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Orangeslice13 and InVOLuntary
#5,608
#5,608
InVOLuntary said:
You're very welcome. Ignorance is bliss as they say. My only thing is if you're going to call someone racist, at least do your own research instead of listening to your left wing media for confirmation.
Click to expand...
I haven't called Charlie a racist, but I can see and understand why you think I did. The flow of these posts on such a hot topic with high emotions can lead to a muddled recollection of who said this and who said that. You're pretty quick to assume everyone who has pointed certain things out about Kirk's dialogue are calling him a racist, but that's not the case for everyone for which you disagree. That's ok too. The guy who killed him is at fault. No one else. Especially those who have never casted a vote for a Democrat who you feel has spat on his legacy
 
#5,609
#5,609
lawgator1 said:
What concerns me about the latest commentary is that in sone quarters there doesn't seem to be any distinction drawn between actually calling for violence versus criticizing the views of victims of violence.

For example, a right wing adherent can believe both of these things:

1) the killing of Hortman was horrible and cannot be justified; and
2) Hortman stood for and advocated for policies which are, to the right wing point of view, terribly wrong.

The fact that she was assassinated doesn't suddenly mean that she or her views cannot be criticized, else the right winger criticizing her is now suddenly a domestic terrorist who must be investigated and fired for having the temerity to criticize a victim.

On the flip side, it is possible to:

1) Find the assassination of Kirk to be abhorrent and unjustifiable; but
2) continue even after his death to disagree and criticize his views and comments.


In both cases, engaging in the second premise doesn't preclude the first and does not justify saying that the person is advocating or defending violence.
Click to expand...
Criticizing one's views is awesome. It's what Charlie invited every time. It would behoove people to know his views and engage in them in good faith as opposed to lies, inventions, assumptions, and inferences. As Slice said, it's easy enough to look up the accusations in the past dozen or so pages and find them to be lies, inventions, assumptions and inferences.

I mean, Geez. Folks claim Charlie was a racist, ignore context and arguments to argue for assumptions about what he said, even after video was posted of him arguing against the very belief that race exists.

It's unknown whether the people in this particular quote-mining campaign were liars or just ignorant followers of other liars, but it is despicable either way.
 
#5,613
#5,613
DinkinFlicka said:
Is it just me or is it the same three posters who pay any attention to what Whoopi Goldberg has to say about anything?

I'm not one to judge how others spend their time, but for ****'s sake it must be a sad situation to tune into the View, and to do so out of spite.
Click to expand...
Even worse, to paint everyone on the other side of the aisle as supporters of their opinions
 
#5,615
#5,615
YankeeVol said:
About that claim…any proof?

Not that I don’t believe you (I don’t), but I walked on the moon not once, but twice
Click to expand...



61To45daqaS._UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, YankeeVol, McDad and 1 other person
#5,618
#5,618
Orange_Crush said:
Criticizing one's views is awesome. It's what Charlie invited every time. It would behoove people to know his views and engage in them in good faith as opposed to lies, inventions, assumptions, and inferences. As Slice said, it's easy enough to look up the accusations in the past dozen or so pages and find them to be lies, inventions, assumptions and inferences.

I mean, Geez. Folks claim Charlie was a racist, ignore context and arguments to argue for assumptions about what he said, even after video was posted of him arguing against the very belief that race exists.

It's unknown whether the people in this particular quote-mining campaign were liars or just ignorant followers of other liars, but it is despicable either way.
Click to expand...


I've watched some of his remarks now and disagree with your characterization. You take many of the pretty awful things he said and cloak it in some other context that mitigates it. But to do so you are in the end just interpreting what he said based on other occasions to ultimately sanitize it.

Not going to work. He said many awful things about blacks and religious minorities. You cant take those remarks and go find other, less obnoxious remarks, and say the latter make the former on the whole "okay."
 
#5,621
#5,621
lawgator1 said:
I've watched some of his remarks now and disagree with your characterization. You take many of the pretty awful things he said and cloak it in some other context that mitigates it. But to do so you are in the end just interpreting what he said based on other occasions to ultimately sanitize it.

Not going to work. He said many awful things about blacks and religious minorities. You cant take those remarks and go find other, less obnoxious remarks, and say the latter make the former on the whole "okay."
Click to expand...
Horse ****. You’re just repeating the same lines that have been talked about here ad nauseam. He didn’t say anything racist etc.

He said men and women are different, Jesus is Lord, DEI is wrong and we need a strong border.

It may have hurt your sensibilities, but that’s easy for you and doesn’tmake anything he said evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and rekinhavoc
#5,624
#5,624
volsforever27 said:
Horse ****. You’re just repeating the same lines that have been talked about here ad nauseam. He didn’t say anything racist etc.

He said men and women are different, Jesus is Lord, DEI is wrong and we need a strong border.

It may have hurt your sensibilities, but that’s easy for you and doesn’tmake anything he said evil.
Click to expand...
And lg will repeat the same bs that the left has been saying and taking out of context.

Rinse and repeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top